← New search

2010 Mercury Mariner

Owner reports · Recalls · Investigations

More warning signs than most Mariner years

Owner complaints for the 2010 Mercury Mariner are substantially higher than the model-year median of 63.

About this comparison →

How this year compares

Owner complaints by model year

Other model years Selected year
Compare all Mariner years →

Counts vary with age, sales and reporting. They are not failure rates.

What owners reported most

All reported categories

Tap a category to read its complaints. One report may name several components.

When problems were reported

Mileage at the reported incident

225 reports with mileage · 45 unknown

NHTSA’s mileage field refers to the reported incident, not necessarily the filing date. This shows report counts, not the likelihood of a failure.

What to inspect

Issues worth paying extra attention to based on owner reports.

  • Vehicle Speed Control. Review the 66 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
  • Engine. Review the 61 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
  • Steering. Review the 61 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →

NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.

2 crash reports2 fire reports3 injury reports

What owners actually said

270 reports
28,803 miles · Sep 6, 2013
Fuel/propulsion System

I HAVE 2012 MERCURY MARINER AND IVE HAD ISSUES WITH MY CAR GOING LIMP. WHEN IM DRIVING UPHILL, MY CAR LOSES POWER, THE WRENCH LIGHT COMES ON AND I HAVE TO PULL OVER (COAST OVER) TO THE SIDE OF THE ROAD AND TURN OFF MY ENGINE AND RESTART MY CAR. THE DEALER SAID IT WAS THROTTLE BODY. EVEN THOUGH MY CAR IS UNDER THE MILEAGE WARR…

Read full complaint

I HAVE 2012 MERCURY MARINER AND IVE HAD ISSUES WITH MY CAR GOING LIMP. WHEN IM DRIVING UPHILL, MY CAR LOSES POWER, THE WRENCH LIGHT COMES ON AND I HAVE TO PULL OVER (COAST OVER) TO THE SIDE OF THE ROAD AND TURN OFF MY ENGINE AND RESTART MY CAR. THE DEALER SAID IT WAS THROTTLE BODY. EVEN THOUGH MY CAR IS UNDER THE MILEAGE WARRANTY, IT IS JUST OVER THE 3 YEAR WARRANTY. IT WILL COST $436 TO REPAIR/REPLACE. MY CAR LOST ACCELERATION POWER WITHOUT WARNING AND PUT ME IN DANGEROUS SITUATIONS SEVERAL TIMES.

NHTSA ODI #10542226

38,000 miles · Sep 6, 2013
Engine

WE WERE TRAVELING DOWN THE HIGHWAY AT 60 MPH WHEN THE ENGINE WENT DEAD LIKE THE SWITCH WAS CUT OFF. I TRIED TO RESTART THE ENGINE AND IT WOULD TRY TO START THEN GO DEAD. I DID THIS 10 TIMES AND IT FINALLY STARTED. I TOOK IT DIRECTLY TO THE LOCAL FORD DEALER. A COMPUTER CHECK DID NOT SHOW ANY PROBLEM. THE DEALER SAID HE DID …

Read full complaint

WE WERE TRAVELING DOWN THE HIGHWAY AT 60 MPH WHEN THE ENGINE WENT DEAD LIKE THE SWITCH WAS CUT OFF. I TRIED TO RESTART THE ENGINE AND IT WOULD TRY TO START THEN GO DEAD. I DID THIS 10 TIMES AND IT FINALLY STARTED. I TOOK IT DIRECTLY TO THE LOCAL FORD DEALER. A COMPUTER CHECK DID NOT SHOW ANY PROBLEM. THE DEALER SAID HE DID NOT KNOW WHAT TO WORK ON AND SAID TO RETURN IT WHEN IT HAPPENS AGAIN.

NHTSA ODI #10542223

111,093 miles · Sep 2, 2013
Engine

VEHICLE LOOSING POWER AND THE CHECK ENGINE LIGHT COMES ON, U WILL HAVE TO SHUT VEHICLE OFF AND RE CRANK IT. *JS

NHTSA ODI #10538344

46,345 miles · Aug 31, 2013
EnginePower TrainVehicle Speed Control

I WAS LEAVING A SOCCER GAME AND THE CAR WENT TO ABOUT 40 MPS AND THE WRENCH LIGHT CAME ON AND THE PEDAL WENT LIMP. I PULLED OVER AND STOPPED THE CAR AND THE CAR STARTED SHAKING LIKE IT WAS OUT OF TIME. I PUT IT IN PART AND SHUT OFF THE CAR WHEN I TURNED THE CAR BACK ON THE LIGHT WAS OFF. I WAS ABLE TO DRIVE 20 MILES BACK AND FOR…

Read full complaint

I WAS LEAVING A SOCCER GAME AND THE CAR WENT TO ABOUT 40 MPS AND THE WRENCH LIGHT CAME ON AND THE PEDAL WENT LIMP. I PULLED OVER AND STOPPED THE CAR AND THE CAR STARTED SHAKING LIKE IT WAS OUT OF TIME. I PUT IT IN PART AND SHUT OFF THE CAR WHEN I TURNED THE CAR BACK ON THE LIGHT WAS OFF. I WAS ABLE TO DRIVE 20 MILES BACK AND FORTH AND THEN IT DID THE SAME THING AGAIN. I HAVE TAKEN IT TO RUN THE CODES AND THERE WERE NONE. TODAY 8/31/13 IT DID THE SAME THING AGAIN AND NOW FINALLY THE ENGINE LIGHT CAME ON. CODES WERE RAN AT AUTOZONE AND P1212 THROTTLE BODY SENSOR FINALLY SHOWED UP. I HAD ALREADY CHECKED THE WEB THE FIRST TIME THAT IT DID IT AFTER TALKING WITH A MECHANIC THAT WORKS AT FORD AND HE TOLD ME WHAT IT WAS AND THAT THERE WAS NO RECALL. I AM VERY UPSET. I JUST PURCHASED THIS CAR LESS THAN THREE MONTHS AGO!!! SINGLE MOM SOMEONE HELP!!! *JS

NHTSA ODI #10538244

74,600 miles · Aug 29, 2013
Engine

ON SEVERAL OCCASIONS THE VEHICLE WOULD SUDDENLY LOOSE POWER FROM HIGHWAY SPEEDS AND LIMP TO THE SIDE OF THE ROAD. A LIGHT WOULD COME ON THAT LOOKED LIKE A WRENCH. ONCE THE VEHICLE WAS STOPPED AND RESTARTED I WAS ABLE TO MOVE ON NORMALLY UNTIL THE NEXT EPISODE WHICH BEGAN TO COME MORE FREQUENTLY. AFTER THE FIRST INCIDENT I IMMEDI…

Read full complaint

ON SEVERAL OCCASIONS THE VEHICLE WOULD SUDDENLY LOOSE POWER FROM HIGHWAY SPEEDS AND LIMP TO THE SIDE OF THE ROAD. A LIGHT WOULD COME ON THAT LOOKED LIKE A WRENCH. ONCE THE VEHICLE WAS STOPPED AND RESTARTED I WAS ABLE TO MOVE ON NORMALLY UNTIL THE NEXT EPISODE WHICH BEGAN TO COME MORE FREQUENTLY. AFTER THE FIRST INCIDENT I IMMEDIATELY WENT TO MY FORD DEALER AND SPOKE TO SOMEONE IN SERVICE WHO TOLD ME THEY COULD HOOK THE CAR UP TO THE COMPUTER BUT SINCE THE WRENCH LIGHT WENT OUT IT WOULD MOST LIKELY SHOW NOTHING AND I WOULD HAVE TO PAY $100 FOR THIS SERVICE. I HAVE AN EXTENDED WARRANTY WITH A $100 DEDUCTIBLE THAT WAS GOING TO RUN OUT IN 400 MILES. I HAVE THE VEHICLE IN RIGHT NOW AND THEY JUST CALLED AND TOLD ME THE THROTTLE BODY NEEDS TO BE REPLACED AND IT IS NOT COVERED UNDER THE EXTENDED WARRANTY AND WILL COST ME OVER $500.

NHTSA ODI #10537956

76,000 miles · Aug 29, 2013
Electronic Stability Control (esc)Power TrainVehicle Speed Control

I WAS DRIVING MY CAR MERGING ON TO THE EXPRESSWAY IN A CONSTRUCTION ZONE AND AS SOON AS I GOT ON THE CAR COMPLETELY LOST POWER. I COULD NOT PUSH ON THE GAS OR ANYTHING. LUCKILY THERE WAS AN OPENING IN SOME CONES FOR ME TO BARELY HAVE ENOUGH POWER TO GET OUT ON ONE LANE OF TRAFFIC IN A CONSTRUCTION ZONE IN MORNING RUSHING HOUR TR…

Read full complaint

I WAS DRIVING MY CAR MERGING ON TO THE EXPRESSWAY IN A CONSTRUCTION ZONE AND AS SOON AS I GOT ON THE CAR COMPLETELY LOST POWER. I COULD NOT PUSH ON THE GAS OR ANYTHING. LUCKILY THERE WAS AN OPENING IN SOME CONES FOR ME TO BARELY HAVE ENOUGH POWER TO GET OUT ON ONE LANE OF TRAFFIC IN A CONSTRUCTION ZONE IN MORNING RUSHING HOUR TRAFFIC. I HAD TO TURN MY CAR OFF AND LUCKILY IT CAME BACK ON. I HAVE READ ONLINE THAT THIS HAS BEEN HAPPENING TO SO MANY PEOPLE THAT THE PART IS ON NATIONAL BACK ORDER. THIS IS CRAZY! I HAD MY 1 YEAR OLD DAUGHTER IN THE CAR AND WE COULD HAVE BEEN HIT. THIS IS COMPLETELY UNSAFE!

NHTSA ODI #10537878

33,985 miles · Aug 28, 2013
Vehicle Speed Control

DRIVING TO WORK WHEN THE WRENCH LIGHT CAME ON AND THE CAR STARTED TO BUCK. THEN THE ENGINE LIGHT CAME ON AND THE CAR SLOWED DOWN TO 0 WHEN I STEPPED ON THE GAS PEDAL. HAD TO PULL OVER QUICKLY AS I WAS IN TRAFFIC AND SHUT THE CAR OFF. STARTED IT UP AGAIN AND ONLY THE CHECK ENGINE LIGHT WAS ON - CAR WOULD ONLY GO ABOUT 15 MPH. …

Read full complaint

DRIVING TO WORK WHEN THE WRENCH LIGHT CAME ON AND THE CAR STARTED TO BUCK. THEN THE ENGINE LIGHT CAME ON AND THE CAR SLOWED DOWN TO 0 WHEN I STEPPED ON THE GAS PEDAL. HAD TO PULL OVER QUICKLY AS I WAS IN TRAFFIC AND SHUT THE CAR OFF. STARTED IT UP AGAIN AND ONLY THE CHECK ENGINE LIGHT WAS ON - CAR WOULD ONLY GO ABOUT 15 MPH. FOUND OUT IT WAS A COMMON PROBLEM BEING LOOKED AT BY NHTSA. POWER TRAIN THROTTLE BODY HAD TO BE REPLACED. NOT COVERED UNDER WARRANTY. I AM NOT A HAPPY CAMPER IT WAS NOT CHEAP TO FIX. EEC TEST CODE P2111 I FOUND THIS ON THE WEB AND WAS SURPRISED TO FIND OUT IT HAS BEEN HAPPENING SINCE THE MODEL YEAR 2009. SHAME ON FORD. *TT

NHTSA ODI #10537784

48,592 miles · Aug 27, 2013
EngineFuel/propulsion SystemVehicle Speed Control

VEHICLE STALLED 3 TIMES AND HAD NO THROTTLE RESPONSE. TURN KEY OFF AND RESTART VEHICLE TO REGAIN THROTTLE RESPONSE. WRENCH LIGHT AND ENGINE LIGHT CAME ON. MECHANIC RETRIEVED MEMORY CODES P2111 AND P2112. *TR PERFORMED ELECTRONIC THROTTLE BODY TEST WITH IDS. THROTTLE BODY FAILED AND HAS A FAULT. MECHANIC REPLACED THROTTLE BODY

NHTSA ODI #10537577

34,100 miles · Aug 26, 2013
EngineVehicle Speed Control

WHILE DRIVING ON SEVERAL OCCASIONS THE VEHICLE UNEXPECTEDLY STALLS WITH NO PRIOR WARNING. THE THIRD TIME I WAS TRAVELING AT APPROXIMATELY 60 MPH ON THE PARKWAY. I HAVE A SECOND 2010 MARINER WHICH HAD EXACTLY THE SAME PROBLEM IN AUGUST 2013. BOTH WERE REPAIRED BY THE DEALER BY REPLACING A DEFECTIVE THROTTLE BODY. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10537260

35,215 miles · Aug 26, 2013
EngineVehicle Speed Control

WHILE DRIVING ON THREE SEPARATE OCCASIONS THE VEHICLE UNEXPECTEDLY STALLS WITH NO PRIOR WARNING. THE THIRD TIME I WAS TRAVELING AT APPROXIMATELY 60 MPH ON THE PARKWAY. A DANGEROUS CONDITION TO SAY THE LEAST. I HAVE A SECOND 2010 MARINER WHICH HAD EXACTLY THE SAME PROBLEM IN JANUARY 2013. BOTH WERE REPAIRED BY THE DEALER BY REPLA…

Read full complaint

WHILE DRIVING ON THREE SEPARATE OCCASIONS THE VEHICLE UNEXPECTEDLY STALLS WITH NO PRIOR WARNING. THE THIRD TIME I WAS TRAVELING AT APPROXIMATELY 60 MPH ON THE PARKWAY. A DANGEROUS CONDITION TO SAY THE LEAST. I HAVE A SECOND 2010 MARINER WHICH HAD EXACTLY THE SAME PROBLEM IN JANUARY 2013. BOTH WERE REPAIRED BY THE DEALER BY REPLACING A DEFECTIVE THROTTLE BODY. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10537259

Official recalls

2

16V777000 · Fuel System, Gasoline:delivery:fuel Pump

Oct 26, 2016

Ford Motor Company (Ford) is recalling certain model year 2010-2012 Ford Escape vehicles manufactured February 26, 2009, to April 29, 2012, and 2010-2011 Mercury Mariner vehicles manufactured February 25, 2009, to December 12, 2010. On vehicles with a 3.0L engine, the Fuel Delivery Module (FDM) may crack, causing a fuel leak.

Consequence & remedy

Consequence: A fuel leak in the presence of an ignition source increases the risk of a fire.

Remedy: Ford will notify owners, and dealers will replace the FDM flange with one that has a redesigned fuel supply port, free of charge. Remedy parts are currently unavailable. Interim notices were mailed to owners on December 13, 2016. Owners will receive a second notice when remedy parts become available. Owners may contact Ford customer service at 1-866-436-7332. Ford's number for this recall is 16S41.

14V284000 · Steering:electric Power Assist System

May 29, 2014

Ford Motor Company (Ford) is recalling certain model year 2008-2011 Ford Escape and Mercury Mariner vehicles manufactured August 18, 2006, through September 11, 2010. The affected vehicles have a steering torque sensor that may not be able to properly detect driver steering input. As a result, the system could remove the Electric Power Steering (EPS) assist.

Consequence & remedy

Consequence: If power steering assist is lost, greater driver effort would be required to steer the vehicle at low speeds, increasing the risk of a crash.

Remedy: Ford will notify owners, and dealers will update the software for the power steering control module (PSCM) and the instrument cluster module, free of charge. If a vehicle shows a history of a loss of the torque sensor signal or fault codes relating to the PSCM when the vehicle is brought in for the recall remedy, the affected components will be replaced, free of charge. The recall began on July 18, 2014. Owners may contact Ford customer service at 1-800-392-3673. Ford's number for this recall is 14S05.

Model-level recall history does not show whether a particular VIN is affected or has received a repair. Check a VIN with NHTSA ↗

NHTSA investigations

3

DP15001 · Loss Of Power Steering While Driving

Opened Apr 1, 2015 · Closed Jun 14, 2018

Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Steering:electric Power Assist System

On May 27, 2014, amended June 2, 2014, Ford Motor Company (Ford) submitted a Defect Information Report (DIR) to NHTSA describing a safety defect that may result in a sudden loss of power steering assist while driving in approximately 746,067 model year (MY) 2008 through 2011 Ford Escape vehicles equipped with electric power assisted steering (NHTSA 14V-284, Ford 14S05). Ford's DIR described the defect condition as a poor signal to noise ratio [SNR] in the torque sensor within the Electric Power Assisted Steering (EPAS) system [which] does not allow the PSCM to determine the driver's steering input. When the system detects this fault condition, it transitions the EPAS system to the fail-safe/manual steering mode.Ford's DIR indicates that loss of power steering assist while driving would require higher steering effort at lower vehicle speeds, which may result in an increased risk of a crash.Ford's remedy instructs dealers to check the Power Steering Control Module (PSCM) for Diagnostic Trouble Codes (DTCs) to determine the proper repair procedure. If no DTCs are present, dealers are to update the PSCM and instrument cluster module software. The updated PSCM software changes the torque sensor fault strategy so that the SNR condition does not result in a loss of power steering assist while driving.In addition, audible and visual warnings are provided for torque sensor faults.If DTCs indicating faults in the torque sensor, PSCM or Power Steering Motor (motor) are present in the initial recall inspection, the dealer performs the following repairs: 1) replaces the torque sensor for torque sensor faults (DTC B2278); or 2) replaces the steering column for faults related to the PSCM (DTC B1342) or motor (DTC B2277).Continued in attachment pages

PE13003 · Electronic Throttle Body Malfunction

Opened Feb 21, 2013 · Closed Feb 28, 2014

Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Engine

On February 21, 2013, the Office of Defects Investigations (ODI) opened Preliminary Evaluation PE13-003 to investigate allegations of electronic throttle body (ETB) failures resulting in sudden reduction of engine power in model year (MY) 2009-2013 Ford Escape, Fusion, Mariner and Milan vehicles. During this investigation, Ford identified a condition in subject vehicles equipped with 2.5L and 3.0L engines that may result in a sudden reduction of engine power.According to Ford, the ETB internal motor contacts may develop a high resistance material buildup condition on the commutator, resulting in intermittent electrical connectivity and reduced engine power. When this condition occurs, the Malfunction Indicator Lamp (MIL) or Wrench light will illuminate and the vehicle may enter a limited limp home mode.Ford?s trade name for the feature is Failure Mode Effects Management (FMEM) mode.In this mode, engine power and vehicle speed are reduced, while full function of the power steering, power braking, lighting, and climate control systems are maintained.ODI?s complaint analysis indicate that the predominant failure mode involved reduced motive power associated with the limited limp home mode with engine speeds limited to approximately 900 RPM. Analysis of warranty claims provided by Ford identified 59,807 claims related to ETB replacements and approximately 50 percent of claims are associated with diagnostic trouble codes (DTC) P2111, Throttle Body Stuck Open, and P2112, Throttle Body Stuck Closed.Ford described several factors where the ETB motor may fail resulting in DTCs P2111 or P2112 but the failure is not an existing stuck open or closed ETB valve position.According to Ford, the ETB control strategy provides the driver with three FMEM modes that allow varying degrees of vehicle mobility depending on the severity of the fault detected.DTCs associated with stuck open or closed throttle valves are designated the highest failure severity resulting in engine speeds limited to high idle corresponding to the limited limp home mode.Vehicles are not likely to unexpectedly stall as a result of this condition, but drivers may characterize the reduced functionality as a stall, even though their vehicle may still has motive capability.Other FMEM limp modes may result in reduced engine performance but will maintain vehicle speed above 20mph. During this investigation, Ford and its suppliers, Delphi and Igarashi, updated the powertrain control module (PCM) software to include a throttle body motor cleaning cycle during key-on and modified the ETB internal motor components design, surface finish and material composition to improve durability. Additionally, Ford developed a remedy procedure and issued a special Customer Satisfaction Program (CSP) 13N03 extending the ETB warranty coverage and instructing dealers to update the powertrain calibration to improve vehicle performance in the event that intermittent electrical connectivity of the throttle body motor contacts occurs. The program extends the coverage for up to 10 years of service or 150,000 miles from the warranty start date of the vehicle, all vehicles are eligible for the program through January 31, 2015 regardless of mileage.Owners of the affected vehicles will be contacted by mail to take their vehicle to a Ford dealer who will reprogram the PCM to the latest calibration. The bulletin was sent to dealers on January 17, 2014 and the owner letter mailing began on January 27, 2014. See the investigative file for copies of Ford's bulletin and owner letter. This preliminary evaluation is closed. The closing of this investigation does not constitute a finding that

PE11016 · Rear Liftgate Window Glass Breakage

Opened Apr 27, 2011 · Closed Aug 18, 2011

Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Structure:body:hatchback/liftgate; Structure:body:hatchback/liftgate:hinge And Attachments; Structure:body:hatchback/liftgate:support Device/strut; Visibility; Visibility:glass, Side/rear

In its response to the agency, Ford acknowledged a higher than normal level of glass breakage incidents in the model year (MY) 2010 to early-build MY 2011 subject vehicles.The incidentsoccurred when the liftgate glass was being opened, or more typically while being closed, but in both cases while the vehicle was stationery, i.e., not moving on the roadway.Additionally failures often occurred during early morning hours when ambient and/or liftgate glass temperatures may have been lower.Ford advised that it investigated the failures but failed to identify an anomaly in the glass manufacturing process (which is often a factor in glass breakage trends ODI investigates) that could explain the reports.It did however identify a potential thermal expansion/compression condition in the mounting of the rear wiper motor to the liftgate glass.Starting at MY 2008 vehicle production the motor was attached to the glass using an adhesive.Ford revised that design to a nut and bolt type attachment in October 2010, during MY 2011 vehicle production.ODI's review of Ford data indicates that vehicles built after this change exhibit lower glass breakage rates.Among the 296 consumer complaints on the subject vehicles, ODI identified 15 injury incidents resulting in a total of 18 alleged injuries.All the injuries were minor in nature and consisted mainly of superficial skin cuts or minor lacerations, with two of the injury incidents occurring when vehicle owners were cleaning up broken glass.Additionally both the injury rate and report rate (including warranty claims) are low in comparison to similar investigations resulting in safety recalls (see PE04-045, MY 2002 Ford explorer liftgate glass failure, which resulted in NHTSA safety recall 04V442). In November 2010 Ford issued Technical Service Bulletin (TSB) 10-22-10 to address reports of liftgate glass breakage on all MY 2010 vehicles, and MY 2011 vehicles built through 10/15/2010, the date the above design revision was implemented.The TSB enables owners of affected vehicles to have a broken liftgate glass replaced under normal vehicle warranty, which would not otherwise be a warrantable failure, with the revised design liftgate glass.A safety-related defect has not been identified at this time and further use of agency resources does not appear to be warranted.Accordingly, this investigation is closed.The closing of this investigation does not constitute a finding by NHTSA that a safety-related defect does not exist.The agency will monitor this issue and reserves the right to take further action if warranted by the circumstances.

Additional source detail variants (5)

Structure:body:hatchback/liftgate

In its response to the agency, Ford acknowledged a higher than normal level of glass breakage incidents in the model year (MY) 2010 to early-build MY 2011 subject vehicles.The incidentsoccurred when the liftgate glass was being opened, or more typically while being closed, but in both cases while the vehicle was stationery, i.e., not moving on the roadway.Additionally failures often occurred during early morning hours when ambient and/or liftgate glass temperatures may have been lower.Ford advised that it investigated the failures but failed to identify an anomaly in the glass manufacturing process (which is often a factor in glass breakage trends ODI investigates) that could explain the reports.It did however identify a potential thermal expansion/compression condition in the mounting of the rear wiper motor to the liftgate glass.Starting at MY 2008 vehicle production the motor was attached to the glass using an adhesive.Ford revised that design to a nut and bolt type attachment in October 2010, during MY 2011 vehicle production.ODI's review of Ford data indicates that vehicles built after this change exhibit lower glass breakage rates.Among the 296 consumer complaints on the subject vehicles, ODI identified 15 injury incidents resulting in a total of 18 alleged injuries.All the injuries were minor in nature and consisted mainly of superficial skin cuts or minor lacerations, with two of the injury incidents occurring when vehicle owners were cleaning up broken glass.Additionally both the injury rate and report rate (including warranty claims) are low in comparison to similar investigations resulting in safety recalls (see PE04-045, MY 2002 Ford explorer liftgate glass failure, which resulted in NHTSA safety recall 04V442). In November 2010 Ford issued Technical Service Bulletin (TSB) 10-22-10 to address reports of liftgate glass breakage on all MY 2010 vehicles, and MY 2011 vehicles built through 10/15/2010, the date the above design revision was implemented.The TSB enables owners of affected vehicles to have a broken liftgate glass replaced under normal vehicle warranty, which would not otherwise be a warrantable failure, with the revised design liftgate glass.A safety-related defect has not been identified at this time and further use of agency resources does not appear to be warranted.Accordingly, this investigation is closed.The closing of this investigation does not constitute a finding by NHTSA that a safety-related defect does not exist.The agency will monitor this issue and reserves the right to take further action if warranted by the circumstances.

Structure:body:hatchback/liftgate:hinge And Attachments

In its response to the agency, Ford acknowledged a higher than normal level of glass breakage incidents in the model year (MY) 2010 to early-build MY 2011 subject vehicles.The incidentsoccurred when the liftgate glass was being opened, or more typically while being closed, but in both cases while the vehicle was stationery, i.e., not moving on the roadway.Additionally failures often occurred during early morning hours when ambient and/or liftgate glass temperatures may have been lower.Ford advised that it investigated the failures but failed to identify an anomaly in the glass manufacturing process (which is often a factor in glass breakage trends ODI investigates) that could explain the reports.It did however identify a potential thermal expansion/compression condition in the mounting of the rear wiper motor to the liftgate glass.Starting at MY 2008 vehicle production the motor was attached to the glass using an adhesive.Ford revised that design to a nut and bolt type attachment in October 2010, during MY 2011 vehicle production.ODI's review of Ford data indicates that vehicles built after this change exhibit lower glass breakage rates.Among the 296 consumer complaints on the subject vehicles, ODI identified 15 injury incidents resulting in a total of 18 alleged injuries.All the injuries were minor in nature and consisted mainly of superficial skin cuts or minor lacerations, with two of the injury incidents occurring when vehicle owners were cleaning up broken glass.Additionally both the injury rate and report rate (including warranty claims) are low in comparison to similar investigations resulting in safety recalls (see PE04-045, MY 2002 Ford explorer liftgate glass failure, which resulted in NHTSA safety recall 04V442). In November 2010 Ford issued Technical Service Bulletin (TSB) 10-22-10 to address reports of liftgate glass breakage on all MY 2010 vehicles, and MY 2011 vehicles built through 10/15/2010, the date the above design revision was implemented.The TSB enables owners of affected vehicles to have a broken liftgate glass replaced under normal vehicle warranty, which would not otherwise be a warrantable failure, with the revised design liftgate glass.A safety-related defect has not been identified at this time and further use of agency resources does not appear to be warranted.Accordingly, this investigation is closed.The closing of this investigation does not constitute a finding by NHTSA that a safety-related defect does not exist.The agency will monitor this issue and reserves the right to take further action if warranted by the circumstances.

Structure:body:hatchback/liftgate:support Device/strut

In its response to the agency, Ford acknowledged a higher than normal level of glass breakage incidents in the model year (MY) 2010 to early-build MY 2011 subject vehicles.The incidentsoccurred when the liftgate glass was being opened, or more typically while being closed, but in both cases while the vehicle was stationery, i.e., not moving on the roadway.Additionally failures often occurred during early morning hours when ambient and/or liftgate glass temperatures may have been lower.Ford advised that it investigated the failures but failed to identify an anomaly in the glass manufacturing process (which is often a factor in glass breakage trends ODI investigates) that could explain the reports.It did however identify a potential thermal expansion/compression condition in the mounting of the rear wiper motor to the liftgate glass.Starting at MY 2008 vehicle production the motor was attached to the glass using an adhesive.Ford revised that design to a nut and bolt type attachment in October 2010, during MY 2011 vehicle production.ODI's review of Ford data indicates that vehicles built after this change exhibit lower glass breakage rates.Among the 296 consumer complaints on the subject vehicles, ODI identified 15 injury incidents resulting in a total of 18 alleged injuries.All the injuries were minor in nature and consisted mainly of superficial skin cuts or minor lacerations, with two of the injury incidents occurring when vehicle owners were cleaning up broken glass.Additionally both the injury rate and report rate (including warranty claims) are low in comparison to similar investigations resulting in safety recalls (see PE04-045, MY 2002 Ford explorer liftgate glass failure, which resulted in NHTSA safety recall 04V442). In November 2010 Ford issued Technical Service Bulletin (TSB) 10-22-10 to address reports of liftgate glass breakage on all MY 2010 vehicles, and MY 2011 vehicles built through 10/15/2010, the date the above design revision was implemented.The TSB enables owners of affected vehicles to have a broken liftgate glass replaced under normal vehicle warranty, which would not otherwise be a warrantable failure, with the revised design liftgate glass.A safety-related defect has not been identified at this time and further use of agency resources does not appear to be warranted.Accordingly, this investigation is closed.The closing of this investigation does not constitute a finding by NHTSA that a safety-related defect does not exist.The agency will monitor this issue and reserves the right to take further action if warranted by the circumstances.

Visibility

In its response to the agency, Ford acknowledged a higher than normal level of glass breakage incidents in the model year (MY) 2010 to early-build MY 2011 subject vehicles.The incidentsoccurred when the liftgate glass was being opened, or more typically while being closed, but in both cases while the vehicle was stationery, i.e., not moving on the roadway.Additionally failures often occurred during early morning hours when ambient and/or liftgate glass temperatures may have been lower.Ford advised that it investigated the failures but failed to identify an anomaly in the glass manufacturing process (which is often a factor in glass breakage trends ODI investigates) that could explain the reports.It did however identify a potential thermal expansion/compression condition in the mounting of the rear wiper motor to the liftgate glass.Starting at MY 2008 vehicle production the motor was attached to the glass using an adhesive.Ford revised that design to a nut and bolt type attachment in October 2010, during MY 2011 vehicle production.ODI's review of Ford data indicates that vehicles built after this change exhibit lower glass breakage rates.Among the 296 consumer complaints on the subject vehicles, ODI identified 15 injury incidents resulting in a total of 18 alleged injuries.All the injuries were minor in nature and consisted mainly of superficial skin cuts or minor lacerations, with two of the injury incidents occurring when vehicle owners were cleaning up broken glass.Additionally both the injury rate and report rate (including warranty claims) are low in comparison to similar investigations resulting in safety recalls (see PE04-045, MY 2002 Ford explorer liftgate glass failure, which resulted in NHTSA safety recall 04V442). In November 2010 Ford issued Technical Service Bulletin (TSB) 10-22-10 to address reports of liftgate glass breakage on all MY 2010 vehicles, and MY 2011 vehicles built through 10/15/2010, the date the above design revision was implemented.The TSB enables owners of affected vehicles to have a broken liftgate glass replaced under normal vehicle warranty, which would not otherwise be a warrantable failure, with the revised design liftgate glass.A safety-related defect has not been identified at this time and further use of agency resources does not appear to be warranted.Accordingly, this investigation is closed.The closing of this investigation does not constitute a finding by NHTSA that a safety-related defect does not exist.The agency will monitor this issue and reserves the right to take further action if warranted by the circumstances.

Visibility:glass, Side/rear

In its response to the agency, Ford acknowledged a higher than normal level of glass breakage incidents in the model year (MY) 2010 to early-build MY 2011 subject vehicles.The incidentsoccurred when the liftgate glass was being opened, or more typically while being closed, but in both cases while the vehicle was stationery, i.e., not moving on the roadway.Additionally failures often occurred during early morning hours when ambient and/or liftgate glass temperatures may have been lower.Ford advised that it investigated the failures but failed to identify an anomaly in the glass manufacturing process (which is often a factor in glass breakage trends ODI investigates) that could explain the reports.It did however identify a potential thermal expansion/compression condition in the mounting of the rear wiper motor to the liftgate glass.Starting at MY 2008 vehicle production the motor was attached to the glass using an adhesive.Ford revised that design to a nut and bolt type attachment in October 2010, during MY 2011 vehicle production.ODI's review of Ford data indicates that vehicles built after this change exhibit lower glass breakage rates.Among the 296 consumer complaints on the subject vehicles, ODI identified 15 injury incidents resulting in a total of 18 alleged injuries.All the injuries were minor in nature and consisted mainly of superficial skin cuts or minor lacerations, with two of the injury incidents occurring when vehicle owners were cleaning up broken glass.Additionally both the injury rate and report rate (including warranty claims) are low in comparison to similar investigations resulting in safety recalls (see PE04-045, MY 2002 Ford explorer liftgate glass failure, which resulted in NHTSA safety recall 04V442). In November 2010 Ford issued Technical Service Bulletin (TSB) 10-22-10 to address reports of liftgate glass breakage on all MY 2010 vehicles, and MY 2011 vehicles built through 10/15/2010, the date the above design revision was implemented.The TSB enables owners of affected vehicles to have a broken liftgate glass replaced under normal vehicle warranty, which would not otherwise be a warrantable failure, with the revised design liftgate glass.A safety-related defect has not been identified at this time and further use of agency resources does not appear to be warranted.Accordingly, this investigation is closed.The closing of this investigation does not constitute a finding by NHTSA that a safety-related defect does not exist.The agency will monitor this issue and reserves the right to take further action if warranted by the circumstances.